sipa changed the topic of #bitcoin-wizards to: This channel is for discussing theoretical ideas with regard to cryptocurrencies, not about short-term Bitcoin development | http://bitcoin.ninja/ | This channel is logged. | For logs and more information, visit http://bitcoin.ninja
rusty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cocoBTC has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jaekwon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
johnwhitton has quit [Quit: johnwhitton]
johnwhitton has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
belcher has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
Xet has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Xet has left #bitcoin-wizards ["Leaving"]
belcher has joined #bitcoin-wizards
johnwhitton has quit [Quit: johnwhitton]
DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CubicEarth has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
justanotheruser has quit [Quit: Reconnecting]
justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
bramc has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
PRab has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.92 [Firefox 44.0.2/20160210153822]]
adlai has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bit2017 has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
johnwhitton has joined #bitcoin-wizards
voxelot has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
zooko has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
johnwhitton has quit [Quit: johnwhitton]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
dnaleor has quit [Quit: Leaving]
bit2017 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<gmaxwell>
I wonder if this is how Bitcoin will die; https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/143/files with implementations competing for how much they can quietly compromise security in for the sake a few percent differences in average case performance.
<TD-Linux>
gmaxwell, why do small incremental losses when you can just drop it all with SPV wallets
veleiro has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<gmaxwell>
But thats part of the problem; the existance of alternative security models was one of the reasons I didn't historically worry much that Bitcoin's security could be eroded by short term 'optimization' like that.
<gmaxwell>
(especially really ill-advised ones like letting a block itself tell you if you should verify it or not via the timestamp which is controlled by the block author)
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
gmaxwell: If the actors in bitcoin start making less than 5% margins or so and expect to continue making such narrow margins until the end of time everything goes to hell in a handbasket very quickly
<gmaxwell>
bramc: well assuming the system rules aren't changed, doing signature validation or not of the historic chain shouldn't really impact your margins.
<gmaxwell>
but yes, there are other places to 'optimize' where the wheels come off.
<gmaxwell>
TD-Linux: In any case, the reason to implement such a thing is for straight PR reasons. Security is complex to sell compared to "X% faster than core!".
<bramc>
gmaxwell: The new tricks I've been coming up with have little 1% advantage here 2% advantage there kind of things. One of the nice things about proofs of space is that everybody's using otherwise wasted space, meaning they aren't dependent on it and the returns are so lousy that it isn't really worth optimizing.
johnwhitton has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<gmaxwell>
people 'optimize' for reasons other than returns however; personal glory, marketing. etc. :)
<gmaxwell>
aj: you can also get compression stats from lightsword if thats all you're looking for.
<bramc>
Yes there are those things. And also undermining the system as a whole can be bad for one's individual future returns. But if actors were facing an immediate defect or go under tomorrow choice they'd be defecting en masse.
<TD-Linux>
gmaxwell, well I guess it's more like you will have to start selling security, whereas you didn't really have to before
<adlai>
bitcoin is not incentive-compatible with an economy where bitcoins are not the most desirable asset, for the economic majority of bitcoin holders... which is a circular definition that has let bitcoin lurk through its limbo with quite a lot of not-dead-yet liveliness
<BlueMatt>
aj: not today, fixable in a few days when i get home
<gmaxwell>
TD-Linux: security is largely a lemon market, so thats bad news.
<gmaxwell>
TD-Linux: being insecure has no cost until you're exploited; which is a prime condition for creating systemic risk.
<bramc>
gmaxwell: I'd like to actually write a BIP for a 'not valid after' extension for transactions. You mentioned this is easy with segwit...
dEBRUYNE has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<kanzure>
as long as confusion still exists regarding whether spv mode "works" or "exists at all" then i think these problems will continue.
<aj>
BlueMatt: cool; enjoy your travels
TheSeven has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
CubicEarth has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
CubicEar_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<kanzure>
the question has never been "can we make accounting and transactions work?" but rather "is it secure?"-- most programmers can do basic accounting tech.
<aj>
gmaxwell: does lightsword have a working url? :)
zooko has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jgarzik has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
Ylbam has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<Lightsword>
just logs I can grep
<aj>
kanzure: ("most programmers can do basic accounting tech" seems optimistic)
<bramc>
I'm happy to learn how BIPs are written and write one up including reasoning and theory but need some help from someone with immediate experience with the bitcoin codebase for the exact details of the extension format and code patching.
<aj>
Lightsword: grep and pipe to email to aj@erisian.com.au for me? :)
<adlai>
kanzure: in my experience, correcting misuse of the term "SPV" just leads to its redefinition for the purpose of the specific discussion to mean "whatever lesser security model this software provides"
<bramc>
Thanks kanzure
<kanzure>
adlai: bitcoin does not exist outside of that security model
<kanzure>
unless you have an off-chain security model, which has many different assumptions
<bramc>
In principle I could do all those details myself but that would be a severe violation of comparative advantage
<adlai>
kanzure: my point is, who are you trying to convince, and of what? the nitpicking over whether "SPV" exists is probably only helpful during choir-preaching
<kanzure>
adlai: i am trying to convince developers that appeasing spv advocates is a failing strategy
<gmaxwell>
kanzure: most programmers cannot sucessfully write a correct bisection search; don't dismiss accounting as easy. :)
<kanzure>
the requirements for holding bitcoin are to have your own private keys and to run a fully-validating node (which is often not mentioned)
<bramc>
Although it's really looking like the actual writing of said BIP won't happen unless I do it. I've been hoping that it would be simple and uncontroversial enough that someone else would take interest, but that apparently isn't the case, and I'm getting very worried about time frame on it.
<bramc>
It's very encouraging that gmaxwell said that segwit makes it a simple extension.
<gmaxwell>
kanzure: I don't agree, to the extent that there are cases where security is not really that important (real or imagined requirements) those requirements should be met, if for no other reason than to avoid pressure to undermine the security of things that are supposted to be secure.
yorick has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
CubicEar_ has quit [Client Quit]
<adlai>
kanzure: so encouraging people to pay for the funding of bitcoin to private keys they control, without encouraging them to validate independently, is roughly equivalent to encouraging them to voluntarily disenfranchise
johnwhitton has quit [Quit: johnwhitton]
<gmaxwell>
bramc: yes, the not valid after itself isn't hard; dealing with the potential fungibility loss and such in a coherent way is hard.
<kanzure>
bramc: if you are talking about your proof-of-space work and using the extension format, then i believe that is a correct and good direction to pursue.
<kanzure>
oh, "not valid after"
<bramc>
gmaxwell: I have good arguments about that, that's the part I'm happy to explain and justify
<kanzure>
well now you owe me a proof-of-space bip :)
<bramc>
gmaxwell: The central idea is 'This can be dealt with in a variety of ways later, and which methods are picked don't affect the not valid after format'
NewLiberty has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
veleiro has joined #bitcoin-wizards
veleiro has quit [Client Quit]
<bramc>
Proof of space is, ahem, an extremely hard fork. But I'm also working on much more immediate block and tackle stuff, and not valid after is by far the easiest win.
<gmaxwell>
bramc: well I think the ideal thing to do is to trace how deep the last point of non-fungiblity is for every input, and then every transaction is the max of those)... so when you get a coin you'll know exactly how reorg safe it is.
<adlai>
bramc: it's not a hardfork if the proofs are required in addition to current work proofs
<bramc>
Maybe I'll write up a draft of the BIP in advance of having the exact details because the higher level semantics are clear
<bramc>
gmaxwell: Good point about tracing back not just the last transaction but its inputs. Can SPV retrieve that history?
* adlai
suspects that this workflow is how most BIPs have ended up being fluffier than the average Medium post
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<adlai>
what's SPV? :P
<kanzure>
bramc: bip1 specifies (recommends) that authors should definitely write high-level overviews before investing significant efforts, and then pinging community people with the drafts and summaries first before exerting effort that might otherwise be wasted. usually this is done by emailing the mailing list, but harassing people on irc could probably also work.
<adlai>
today, to crawl back through tx inputs, you either need your own indexed blockchain, or to trust 3rd party nodes
<gmaxwell>
adlai: right, that why I was suggesting the forward bubbling information be required.
<bramc>
SPV or an extension of it should be able to prove that a particular utxo was created in a particular historical block fairly straightforwardly
<bramc>
Actually, it doesn't even have to come from SPV, it can be sent from the payer to the payee
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<kanzure>
out-of-band transaction history stuff has been proposed on a few occassions, like "coin history linearization"
<adlai>
gmaxwell: i see. you're describing an SPV-compatible strategy which can only answer for the parts of the utxo set generated after it came online?
N0S4A2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<adlai>
history-linearilazion-as-work-proof always seems to me the least-obvious-now-but-most-in-retrospect idea on hardfork wishlists
<bramc>
adlai: Requiring both the current proof of work and a proof of space as well would unfortunately get the worst of both
N0S4A2 has quit [Client Quit]
N0S4A2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bramc has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
* adlai
wonders what a rational time window is, within which current miners would be willing to make their hardware useless. this could probably be calculated in a manner similar to current mining hardware obsolescence, although the process does introduce an "obsolescence cliff"
<coinoperated_tv>
adlai: vaild observation; it's getting hard to tell what people mean when they say SPV any more, it's becoming a vaguely derogatory epithet applied to anything the speaker thinks is a weak security model
zooko has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
<adlai>
it's a shame that it's become another Term Considered Harmful, because (like the others) it does have an actual meaning
<aj>
Lightsword: a week or so would be nice if it's handy? if not, thanks :)
<Lightsword>
aj, ok ill get that in a little, I just have to pull from the compressed logs
mrkent_ has quit []
NewLiberty has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Burrito has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<bsm1175321>
bramc: responding to your messages starting about 4.5 hours ago: It seems to me that your "proof of time" is actually "proof of work" assuming the global work available doesn't increase faster than X. Assuming increasing work is probably not a good idea, and in fact we will sometimes see decreasing work. Also assuming it can't increase faster than a certain rate is easy to violate by hoarding ASICs... If we cou
<bsm1175321>
This is fundamentally unlike proof-of-space in which you can fill your disk with junk and generate a proof from it. You can't fill time with junk and generate a proof...
<kanzure>
bsm1175321: you have cutoff at "hoarding ASICS.... If we cou"
<bsm1175321>
*sigh*
<bsm1175321>
Also assuming it can't increase faster than a certain rate is easy to violate by hoarding ASICs... If we could prove the passage of time, this whole mining thing would be moot, but I really don't think it's possible.
<bsm1175321>
I'd be very happy to be proven wrong.
<gmaxwell>
wow. gavin is actually defending that "ignore scriptvalidation on blocks with timestamps >24 hours old" patch.
<kanzure>
*attempting to defend
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zooko has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
voxelot has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bit2017 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
copumpkin has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
ebfull has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
wumpus has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
wangchun has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
rubensayshi has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
nivah has joined #bitcoin-wizards
contrapumpkin has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wangchun_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wump has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rubensayshi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175321>
Can someone explain the considerations on that one?
<midnightmagic>
fascinating.
jarret has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<bsm1175321>
midnightmagic: elaborate?
CubicEarth has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
NewLiberty has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<midnightmagic>
gmax's comment, two or three lines ago
<bsm1175321>
FWIW if you want to ignore the classic trolls, I don't blame you. But It's worthwhile to make coherent, logical arguments against these things, and if you don't have the time, I'll do it on your behalf, with or without citation. (And I don't understand the 24h comments, honestly)
<bsm1175321>
Also I don't see where gavin is defending them so I'm obviously not reading the right thing.
<maaku>
kanzure : a suitable goal for AGI: play 'Myst' better than a human
<midnightmagic>
bsm1175321: check his twitter feed.
<bsm1175321>
There is nothing worth reading on the twatter.
<midnightmagic>
also the github pullrwq I think
<bsm1175321>
I can't make a cohesive argument in 140 characters, and neither can anyone else.
<kanzure>
bsm1175321: their argument is that nobody is able to mine for 24 hours or something
<bsm1175321>
I thought of that. I thought maybe there was something deeper.
<gmaxwell>
they're getting caught up "oh but would miners really make a 24 hour reorg"-- well they might well, but none is required for exploitation of this vulnerability.
zooko has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<bsm1175321>
Props to you folks with the patience to read roddit and twatter. They make my eyeballs bleed.
<MRL-Relay>
[tacotime] you really think someone would just go on the internet and tell lies?
<gmaxwell>
What interesting to me is that related misbehaivor was accidentally introduced in Bitcoin Core in the 0.8 timeframe; and when it was discovered and reported it was treated as a serious vulnerability and handled quietly and fixed.
<bsm1175321>
So, this is pretty similar to a conversation happening in Ethereum space, which boils down to the argument: everyone knows what the correct chain is, just check your favorite local block explorer.
<bsm1175321>
And is obviously not exploitable by anyone for anything.
<bsm1175321>
</sarcasm> in case it's not obvious.
<kanzure>
aka "average case vs adversarial case"
<bsm1175321>
exactamundo
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
funkenstein_ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<gmaxwell>
bsm1175321: yea, in the "wait why do we have this system at all" case.
<bsm1175321>
kanzure: this is a good argument. "average case vs. adversarial case". I've had to make this kind of argument repeatedly in recent weeks...
<smooth>
None of this is very surprising. Bitcoin was revoluationary, but the natural marketing response to this is to try things that are sorta-like-Bitcoin even if watered down and no longer revolutionary to see if that is actually what people want
<bramc>
bsm1175321: A proof of time is a very, very different animal from a proof of work. It's a proof of sequential work, demonstrating that some amount of time passed between when the challenge was generated and when the proof of time calculation was completed
<smooth>
like when the iphone was a hit, the first thing people did was not to create competing smart phones with powerful operating systems, it was feature phones with touch screens
<bsm1175321>
bramc: Glad you reappeared. Can you explain proof-of-time as distinct from proof-of-work with a bound on maximum-increase-in-work?
<bramc>
So, here's my proposal: If you trace back all the parents, grandparents, etc. of the payment you're receiving up to 100 blocks ago, and all of them have the property that their not valid after date is more than 100 blocks after the one they were entered into, then the payment is 'safe' and you can accept it after only a few blocks have been built on top. Otherwise you have to wait for 100 blocks to pass after the transaction wh
<amiller_>
bsm1175321, suppose a million people all try to start solving a proof-of-time at once. it still takes the same amount of time. because it requires a fixed amount of sequential work one step after another, so parallel resources don't help at all
<kanzure>
bramc: you have cutoff near "100 blocks to pass after the transaction wh"
<gmaxwell>
"Energy traders would never intentionally overbook transmission links, creating massive outages, in order to create shortages that made their futures contracts profitable; and cause many tens of billions of dollars in harm to the public"
<bramc>
I believe that approach is 'conservative', which is not to say that it's exactly what one should do, just that it demonstrates that a conservative approach is possible and can be settled on client side later with 'reasonable' assumptions about payers sending proofs to payees or an extension to spv
<kanzure>
bramc, there are irc client extensions that can fix line length cutoff problems
<bramc>
100 blocks to pass after the transaction which was a 'near miss'.
<bramc>
kanzure: I'm using freenode's webchat, which one would think would handle that properly
<kanzure>
lately i have found that having expectations is suboptimal
<bsm1175321>
amiller_: Your argument is still proof-of-work. hash-of-hash-of-hash-of-hash-of... is an obvious way to implement it but cannot be quickly validated, and is bounded by todays silicon CPUs and their ~4GHz limit, but that will not last forever.
<bsm1175321>
So, it's not proof of time except if you assume we can never develop a faster sequential computation technology.
<kanzure>
wasn't "time" one of those things that could only be measured by having movement between reference frames or something
<amiller_>
bsm1175321, there are a variety of ways to implement it with fast verification
<bsm1175321>
amiller_: 3 seconds of thought and I didn't come up with one, but I don't doubt you.
<amiller_>
bsm1175321, but that's orthogonal to the definition of time = sequential work.... yes it depends on assuming no faster sequential computation technology. so yes it's only about "time" indirectly in some sense. i think we're on the same page though
jaekwon has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<bsm1175321>
Let's assume validation is O(1). Doesn't change the fact that proof-of-work is being used as a proxy for proof-of-time here.
jaekwon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
bsm1175321: The proof of time difficulty needs a work reset function as well. Getting that right is a matter of considerable subtlety.
<gmaxwell>
bsm1175321: it's still not the same as the embarassingly parallel kind of proof of work that is normally used.
<bsm1175321>
I like where this is going.
<gmaxwell>
bsm1175321: it's maybe an unanswered question as to exactly how different it really is... but it isn't the same thing. It might be helpful if people erased proof of time from their vocab and said SPOW (sequential pow).
<bsm1175321>
Now I want to see the fast validation algorithm...
<kanzure>
gmaxwell: how do you reconcile "'why do we have this at all' case" with your earlier "cases where security is not really that important (real or imagined requirements) those requirements should be met, if for no other reason than to avoid pressure to undermine said security of things supposedly secure".
<amiller_>
bsm1175321, there are at least 3 options... option 1) use snarks, ya dingus
<bsm1175321>
OTOH a SPOW algo puts all power into the hands of the entity with the fastest processor. That sucks in other ways.
<amiller_>
bsm1175321, no no no no that's not how anyone is proposing to use SPOW
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<amiller_>
no one is advocating using it as just a drop-in replacement for pow... what bram has in mind is a litle more subtle and involving using SPOW tactically in combination with some other variations, it does not make it so whoever is fastest always wins
<gmaxwell>
bsm1175321: bramc's design interleaves SPOW with a running cost 'free' mining function, 'proof of space' (you could also imagine schemes that interleave SPOW with POS)
<bramc>
amiller_: Both of those options you present are malleable or near-malleable, and hence can't be used for this use case. The second one is close to a (much dumber) approach which is acceptable though.
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
<bramc>
bsm1175321: It's analogous to work = force time distance. A block is complete when it has a proof of time added to it such that the number of generations in the proof of time is equal to the current work difficulty divided by the quality of the proof of space
<bramc>
With the quality of proof of space being selected uniformly in the range (0, 1)
<bsm1175321>
Very very interesting, thanks all. Just to be clear, this *does* always depend on sequential processing, and therefore, measurement of time is really related to the recent stall in CPU clock rate manufacturing near ~3-4 GHz.
<bramc>
er, being the reciprocal of that I mean
PRab has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175321>
bramc: understood
<bramc>
bsm1175321: Most definitely yes, a proof of time isn't proving time per se, it's proving a certain number of generations of hashing or some equivalent. Because you're multiplying together the proofs of space and time, a single reset on the combined difficulty based on how long the last cycle took will suffice
<bsm1175321>
So in the event of a tech leap (quantum computing, GaAs processors, etc) this requires a difficulty reset?
<bramc>
bsm1175321: The advantage of this approach is that it completely fixed the problem of somebody re-mining since genesis when the work difficulty now is much greater than it used to be. There doesn't appear to be any other way of fixing that problem.
<bsm1175321>
But until then, who wins? That one guy with the overclocked, nitrogen-cooled processor?
<bsm1175321>
bramc: I definitely like that aspect.
<smooth>
bramc: how does it fix that if sequential hashing becomes vastly faster?
<bramc>
bsm1175321: The difficulty is reset every 1000 generation just like normal. The beauty of it is that improving either the amount of space or the speed of time by X will result in the next 1000 cycles having their time to finish getting divided by X, so the style of difficulty reset in Bitcoin can be carried over verbatim and still works.
<bsm1175321>
It seems to me that it changes the perverse incentive from housing 10000 miners with cheap power to liquid-nitrogen cooling a smaller batch of processors.
<bsm1175321>
It seems to me that the block reward always goes to one. :-/ There's no statistical variance anymore in who gets it...
<bramc>
Oh that's another aspect of it: There's zero zip nada reward for doing the proof of time calculation. You can't even tell who did it, it's 100% canonical. After a previous challenge is completed everybody communicates the best next block they know of and everybody who has superfast proof of time servers builds the proofs of time with it and whoever finishes first publishes. They wind up keeping each other honest via competition
jgarzik has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
<bsm1175321>
A better reward schedule, for SPOW would be to pay the losers too. Maybe a dutch auction...the reward goes to the *second* person to solve it...
zooko` has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
<bsm1175321>
Hmmm...I would love to see a formal proposal involving SPOW. Are there any
<bsm1175321>
?
<bsm1175321>
I've been devoting a lot of time to proof-of-space in the context of proof-of-holding-subset-of-UTXO-space. SPOW would be a lovely addition.
<bsm1175321>
I can't say I'm a big fan of wasting HDD space as a method to secure a crypto-currency. But holding UTXO data is absolutely valuable, and should be explicitly rewarded.
<bramc>
bsm1175321: No it's like Bitcoin. Blocks at the same height are all worth exactly the same amount both in terms of preference and rewards (except immediately after a work difficulty reset). The tiebreak of who wins is whoever finishes it first.
<bramc>
bsm1175321: Both the proofs of space and the proofs of time are by design completely wasteful. I'll explain how they work in a minute, doing too many things at once at the moment.
chris2000 has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
jaekwon has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jaekwon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CrazyTruthYakDDS has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
johnwhitton has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Alopex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Alopex has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bsm1175321>
bramc: This gives all the coins to the single actor with the fastest sequential computation rig (e.g. LN2 cooled craziness) and zero to the second place winner.
<bsm1175321>
A better reward algorithm is needed...
rusty has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
<bramc>
bsm1175321: No the idea is that whoever the fastest proof of time server on the network as a whole is does the proof of time. Everybody publishes their best proof of space, and whoever's running a proof of time server does a proof of time on the best proof of space they know of as fast as they can. The incentive to do this is to keep everybody else honest.
<bramc>
Trying to reward the making of proofs of time directly creates lots of problems (although it's trivial for proof of space miners to pay them by including transactions which do that).
Giszmo has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<bramc>
One thing which might happen is that there are multiple proof of time servers and the miners pay them based on how fast the proof of time servers are and how good the particular proof is, resulting in some amount of risk that a faster server will finish a worse proof faster.
<bramc>
Since the delta between time server speeds is likely to be small, the fees should be very low.
<moa>
so to convert between proof of space and proof of time we use speed of light?
<moa>
and i?
bildramer has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
jtimon has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
contrapumpkin has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
bildramer has joined #bitcoin-wizards
MiniDevil has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
MiniDevil has joined #bitcoin-wizards
adlai has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
adlai has joined #bitcoin-wizards
voxelot has quit [*.net *.split]
yorick has quit [*.net *.split]
adams__ has quit [*.net *.split]
CodeShark has quit [*.net *.split]
SheffieldCrypto_ has quit [*.net *.split]
huseby has quit [*.net *.split]
cfields_ has quit [*.net *.split]
aem has quit [*.net *.split]
Jaamg has quit [*.net *.split]
Jaamg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
voxelot has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cfields_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CodeShark has joined #bitcoin-wizards
huseby has joined #bitcoin-wizards
aem has joined #bitcoin-wizards
SheffieldCrypto_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
yorick has joined #bitcoin-wizards
adams__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
skyraider has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
wump is now known as wumpus
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jaekwon has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
CrazyTruthYakDDS has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
phiche has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
teslax has joined #bitcoin-wizards
chris200_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
phiche has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
phiche has joined #bitcoin-wizards
berndj has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
CrazyTruthYakDDS has quit [*.net *.split]
voxelot has quit [*.net *.split]
yorick has quit [*.net *.split]
adams__ has quit [*.net *.split]
CodeShark has quit [*.net *.split]
SheffieldCrypto_ has quit [*.net *.split]
huseby has quit [*.net *.split]
cfields_ has quit [*.net *.split]
aem has quit [*.net *.split]
Jaamg has quit [*.net *.split]
<bramc>
moa: What? No, proofs of space and proofs of time are very different beasts, but they can work fairly well together.
c-cex-yuriy has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<bramc>
Anyway, the two primitives needed are proofs of space and proofs of time, which I will now describe.
berndj has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
The elegant but busted proof of space is to make it so that the response to a challenge is a public key, and the quality of that public key is the difference between its hash and the challenge
<bramc>
(non-malleability is very important all over the place here, by the way, but I won't get into the excruciating details.)
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
So to prepare to respond to a challenge, a node fills their whole hard drive with public keys (well, salts for them anyway) then sorts them in place. When they want to respond to a challenge, they look at the appropriate spot on their hard drive and find the closest value they have.
<bramc>
This also has the property that the distribution of quality of responses is the exact same exponential decay as how long it takes to find a block in Bitcoin.
<bramc>
Unfortunately this technique is busted. For fairly nontrivial algorithmic reasons it's possible to do time space tradeoffs. The somewhat awkward sounding proof of space I described earlier today is meant to fix this one.
<bramc>
There are very different proofs of space based on pebbling, but they're malleable, huge, and generally awful.
<bramc>
For canonical proofs of time, there are two different known workable-ish approaches. They both kind of suck in different ways.
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
<bramc>
ZK doesn't work at all because it's malleable.
CrazyTruthYakDDS has joined #bitcoin-wizards
voxelot has joined #bitcoin-wizards
yorick has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CodeShark has joined #bitcoin-wizards
adams__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
aem has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cfields_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Jaamg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
SheffieldCrypto_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
huseby has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CrazyTruthYakDDS has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CrazyTruthYakDDS has quit [Changing host]
Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<gmaxwell>
kanzure: re how to I reconcile it, simple.
<bramc>
The mathy version is to do modular square roots. From Fermat's little theorem we know that a^p == a (mod p) so a^(p/2) is the modular square root of a. The ratio between the time it will take to verify that square root and the time it will take to calculate it is linear on the length of p's binary representation.
jannes has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<gmaxwell>
kanzure: lets imagine. You have bitcoin. You have it because it is sound money, autonoymous, censorship resistant, etc. You value it greatly. I sell sprokets. I couldn't give a shit about bitcoin. But I can sell bitcoin for sproketglue, so I'm happy enough to accept it. I don't want to take any costs to accept it, heck, you don't want me taking costs to accept it (I'll just demand higher bitcoi
<gmaxwell>
n prices or not accept it at all). You want me on a SPV node.
<bramc>
It isn't clear whether the amount of time it takes to calculate should be assumed to be linear or quadratic on the length of p. I suspect it's possible to do some very clever stuff to make multiplication algorithms very well parallelized albeit inefficient. The numbers work fine as long as you assume regular CPUs and algorithms, but if you assume custom hardware and clever algorithms the p has to get so big that the
<bramc>
network bandwidth necessary to transmit the proofs becomes problematic. Also the time necessary for a regular CPU to verify may become problematic.
<bramc>
Basically the asymptotic or the ratio here isn't very good. It works-ish, but I'm hoping some clever person can find something better.
<gmaxwell>
kanzure: okay maybe you might really prefer I take bitcoin into my heart and care about all the things you care about and run my own node. ... But you also want a pony.
<bramc>
(it is a fun construction though)
<bramc>
gmaxwell: Have you been following the stuff I've been babbling about in here about stopping block withholding attacks and fixing proofs of space?
<gmaxwell>
kanzure: what you don't want me doing is refusing to use it at all, or demanding full node security be reduced to accomidate me. And you'd probably prefer I run SPV or at least have an option to rather than being stuck with a centeralized webwallet; lest you lose the censorship resistant property becuase I won't take payments from you wnaymore.
<gmaxwell>
bramc: no just tuned back in seconds ago.
<gmaxwell>
bramc: standard solution to stop withholding is to make the POW two stage... and the second stage requires a comitted secret..
<bramc>
gmaxwell: Earlier today I described an improved version of the 'fixed' proof of space technique I described to you in meatspace and also a neat trick for stopping block withholding attacks efficiently
CrazyTruthYakDDS has quit [*.net *.split]
voxelot has quit [*.net *.split]
yorick has quit [*.net *.split]
adams__ has quit [*.net *.split]
CodeShark has quit [*.net *.split]
SheffieldCrypto_ has quit [*.net *.split]
huseby has quit [*.net *.split]
cfields_ has quit [*.net *.split]
aem has quit [*.net *.split]
Jaamg has quit [*.net *.split]
<bramc>
gmaxwell: Not sure what you meat by a committed secret but the general idea is the same. The idea is that the challenges for blocks [N*40, (N+1)*40) are all derived from a proof of time on top of block (N-1)*40 which requires 10 blocks worth of time to calculate
<gmaxwell>
what do you gain from the delay and the commitment being public like that?
<gmaxwell>
one problem is that it would decrease the variance of block races, which would harm convergence.
CubicEarth has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<bramc>
gmaxwell: For the proof of space the response to a challenge is a public key and a k value, plus two strings of length k such that the first k+2 bits of both of them matches the challenge. Quality of the response is its hash right shifter k bits
<gmaxwell>
like you and I both have candidate blocks, then we get the SPOW and are now in a race when we otherwise wouldn't be in one.
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
<bramc>
The reason for the multiple block stack is that it makes it no that whoever publishes block (N-1)*40 has to publish it to let others build on it before they know if its challenges favor themselves. The reason for it being a stack of 10 worth when the groups are 40 is to make it so there's way excessive headroom so you almost never block on waiting to find out what the new challenges are when the time to build using them rolls a
CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CrazyTruthYakDDS has joined #bitcoin-wizards
SheffieldCrypto_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Jaamg has joined #bitcoin-wizards
aem has joined #bitcoin-wizards
cfields_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
adams__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CodeShark has joined #bitcoin-wizards
voxelot has joined #bitcoin-wizards
huseby has joined #bitcoin-wizards
yorick has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
Switching back for a second, for those of you who don't know the other approach to proofs of time is to do repeated hashing. If you add in checkpoints to the proof then the individual bits can be checked in parallel. If you make it so the start of each section is to hash together all of the proof so far then spot check is quite effective
<bramc>
It's obviously impractical to have all peers check everything, but since proofs of fraud are trivial to find and verify: 'check bit X, dumbass' that's okay-ish
<bramc>
So on the whole the second approach is workable while the first one isn't, but I'm hoping that somebody comes out with a mathy approach with a better asymptotic so there's no need to rely on fraud proofs
<bramc>
I garbled my explanation of the fixed proofs of space, that should have said 'the first k+2 bits of the hashes of the challenge plus each of them'
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Don_John has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
gmaxwell: The +2 might be a bit mysterious. It's there to (a) make it uncommon to have more than two in the bucket which results in multiple results to choose from and possible picking out of the one most favorable to oneself, and (b) make it so there frequently isn't any solution at all, to get rid of the advantage which a single large coordinated miner gets in always exactly covering the whole space with no collisions
johnwhitton has quit [Quit: johnwhitton]
<bramc>
The other technique of throwing in the proofs of time before you find out what the challenges are helps with the realtime cooperative mining but not with an attacker who's trying to remine since a while ago so (a) is still relevant
<bramc>
As per usual I'm throwing in hacky techniques which have weird quirks and nasty abstraction boundary busting. But they do seem to work.
moa has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
<bramc>
The having to cough up two responses instead of one is to make it so that the repeated hashing tricks which bust the beautiful simple but busted proof of space technique don't work any more.
DougieBot5000 has quit [Quit: Leaving]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CrazyTruthYakDDS has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
CubicEarth has quit []
tucenaber has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Fornax96 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
Apparently everybody's gone to bed. I'm done with dense mathy commentary for the day.
priidu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
crossing-styx has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
Fornax96 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
voxelot has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
p15 has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
p15 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
blackwraith has joined #bitcoin-wizards
priidu has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
Fornax96 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Fornax96 has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
Fornax96 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
everyBloc has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Fornax96 has quit [Quit: Leaving]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
phiche1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
phiche has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has quit [Client Quit]
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dEBRUYNE has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bramc has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
Guyver2 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
frankenmint has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
AaronvanW has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<shesek>
with ZKCP, is there a way to have the buyer commit to the payment prior to the seller finding the solution?
<shesek>
that is, to give the seller an assurance that if he's extending resources to find the solution and gets a valid one, the buyer can't just disappear and decide that he isn't willing to pay for the solution
<gmaxwell>
shesek: no, not with that protocol (I mean you could escrow things externally but lose trustlessness)
<shesek>
yeah, I figured that it could be done with a trusted party... but was hoping that there might be some trustless way to achieve that
<nsh>
gmaxwell, what was your take on the Biryukov, Khovratovich paper on PoW from 'algorithm binding' to generalised birthday paradox from generic NP-hard problems? doesn't look like released any code, but i couldn't see any superficial reasons it wasn't a sound method in principle (not that i thought about it very hard)
<nsh>
the claim that there is a tunable 'steepness' time-space-tradeoff is quite strong
tucenaber has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
chris200_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Yoghur114 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Ares-97-diligent has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Anduck_ has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Anduck has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nivah has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AnoAnon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Burrito has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AnoAnon has quit [Client Quit]
andytoshi has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
BitcoinDevotee has joined #bitcoin-wizards
p15 has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
p15 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AnoAnon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AnoAnon has quit [Client Quit]
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
eudoxia has joined #bitcoin-wizards
yorick__ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
yorick has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Tiraspol has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Tiraspol has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Tiraspol has quit [Changing host]
Tiraspol has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
bit2017 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
phiche1 has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
Tiraspol has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Tiraspol has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Tiraspol has joined #bitcoin-wizards
chris200_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gielbier has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gielbier has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AnoAnon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AnoAnon has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Erik_dc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
AnoAnon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zooko has joined #bitcoin-wizards
phiche has joined #bitcoin-wizards
eudoxia has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<kanzure>
gmaxwell: having people accept "spv payments" is an extremely reduced security model... it's like saying "here accept my money as payment, but also, i should probably let you know that it's easy for people to steal this from you unless you're running a fu...." you know what, that argument sounds so weak that i'm surprised people aren't advocating for centralization-only instead of spv.
wizkid057 has quit [Quit: bbiaf]
jarret has quit [Quit: Leaving]
andytoshi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jarret has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rubensayshi has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
davec has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
arubi has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Burrito has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
davec has joined #bitcoin-wizards
arubi has joined #bitcoin-wizards
c-cex-yuriy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jaekwon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
funkenstein_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
chris200_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
voxelot has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AnoAnon has quit [Quit: Leaving]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
johnwhitton has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Eris72 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
c-cex-yuriy has quit []
c-cex-yuriy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Burrito has joined #bitcoin-wizards
HostFat has joined #bitcoin-wizards
DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dnaleor_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
phiche has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
phiche has joined #bitcoin-wizards
HostFat has quit [Quit: Leaving]
phiche has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
ebfull has joined #bitcoin-wizards
dabura667_ has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
jaekwon has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jaekwon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
funkenstein_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
gribble has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
dabura667 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zooko has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
zooko has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zooko` has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gribble has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zooko has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
bramc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<bramc>
Memory-hard problems in general suffer from (a) they have a rather large minimum amount of time to work (b) their bottleneck is probably still costs of power instead of costs of chips.
<bramc>
That said, they're the best approach to asic resistance anyone has come up with so far. Not clear whether asic resistance is a good thing...
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
jarret has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
jaekwon has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jaekwon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jaekwon has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jaekwon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
everyBloc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
blackwraith has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
Eris72 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
blockzombie has joined #bitcoin-wizards
coinoperated_tv has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Tiraspol has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
coinoperated_tv has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Tiraspol has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Tiraspol has quit [Changing host]
Tiraspol has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kanzure has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
kanzure has joined #bitcoin-wizards
coins123 has quit []
jgarzik has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
zooko` has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
blockzombie has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
blockzombie has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bramc has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
everyBloc has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Don_John has joined #bitcoin-wizards
blockzombie has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jannes has quit [Quit: Leaving]
priidu has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Tiraspol has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Tiraspol has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Tiraspol has quit [Changing host]
Tiraspol has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CrazyTruthYakDDS has joined #bitcoin-wizards
adlai1 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
adlai has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
jgarzik has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
jarret has joined #bitcoin-wizards
everyBloc has joined #bitcoin-wizards
markus-k has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kanzure has joined #bitcoin-wizards
kanzure has quit [Changing host]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
markus-k has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
markus-k has joined #bitcoin-wizards
funkenstein_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
jarret has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
misalias is now known as prosodyContexte
jtimon has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
AaronvanW has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
johnwhitton has quit [Quit: johnwhitton]
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CrazyTruthYakDDS has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
phiche has joined #bitcoin-wizards
yorick has joined #bitcoin-wizards
yorick__ has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
yorick has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
yorick has joined #bitcoin-wizards
yorick has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
nuke1989 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
CrazyTruthYakDDS has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-wizards
phiche has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
gielbier has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gielbier has quit [Changing host]
gielbier has joined #bitcoin-wizards
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
markus-k has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
GAit has quit [Client Quit]
GAit has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
phiche has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
ThomasV has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
gielbier has quit [Quit: Leaving]
_rht has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
laurentmt has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
wallet42 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has quit [Client Quit]
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jgarzik has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
jtimon has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Adiabat has left #bitcoin-wizards [#bitcoin-wizards]
Guyver2 has quit [Quit: :)]
wizkid057 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
johnwhitton has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-wizards
frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-wizards
RoboTeddy has joined #bitcoin-wizards
funkenstein_ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
mariorz has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
RoboTeddy has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
laurentmt has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
phiche has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
johnwhitton has quit [Quit: johnwhitton]
jarret has joined #bitcoin-wizards
mariorz has joined #bitcoin-wizards
laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wizkid057 has quit [Quit: wizkid057 doesn't care]
wizkid057 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
wizkid057 is now known as Guest50319
Guest50319 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]